William DeVinney

Counsel

Washington, D.C.
T 202.861.1554  |  F 202.861.1783

William DeVinney has a broad litigation practice that includes antitrust, intellectual property, commercial class action, securities, and other complex commercial litigation. He has extensive trial experience, both as a member of trial teams and as first chair in jury and bench trials, arbitrations proceedings, and regulatory hearings. William has also argued cases before several federal and state appellate courts. He also counsels clients on antitrust issues.

Select Experience

  • Member of team representing certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 Southeastern States against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods, and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for marketing, sale, and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast United States. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of alleged damages.
  • Represented multinational consumer goods company in consumer class action alleging false advertising. Complaint against client dismissed with prejudice.
  • Represented multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation against Sherman Act Section 2 claim brought by competitor alleging that client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
More »

Experience

  • Member of team representing certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 Southeastern States against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods, and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for marketing, sale, and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast United States. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of alleged damages.
  • Represented multinational consumer goods company in consumer class action alleging false advertising. Complaint against client dismissed with prejudice.
  • Represented multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation against Sherman Act Section 2 claim brought by competitor alleging that client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
  • Defended multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology company accused of monopolizing market for transgenic corn seed industry. Motion for class certification by plaintiff rejected by trial court and before Third Circuit on appeal.
  • Represented multinational technology company in private antitrust claim brought by competitor, as well as in investigations brought by the EU, Federal Trade Commission, and state government enforcement agencies.
  • Defended former executive of Bankers Trust Corporation in criminal trial and related SEC administrative proceedings arising from alleged improper accounting treatment of unclaimed funds. After six-week jury trial, client was acquitted of all 36 counts in indictment and favorable settlement was reached with SEC.

Pro Bono

  • Served as lead counsel for three congressmen and a public interest group filing amicus brief in United States Supreme Court.
  • Represented several clients in fair housing cases in antidiscrimination, fair housing, landlord/tenant, and contractual disputes.

Services

Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • District of Columbia
  • New York

Education

  • J.D., William & Mary Law School, 1998
  • B.S., Cornell University, 1991

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Symposium on Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
February 19, 2015
Companies and institutions may be vulnerable to FTC claims of antitrust or consumer fraud violations without realizing it. Learn how to help prevent such potentially damaging issues through a groundbreaking, BakerHostetler-sponsored...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
To Report or Not to CFIUS, That Is the Question
February 16, 2015
With the complexities inherent in many cross-border transactions – from cultural differences to the growing number of competition authorities demanding paperwork – the last thing one may want to think about is whether to submit a voluntary...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
“Oh help me, please doctor, I’m damaged”*—What does the Future Hold for Hospital-Physician Acquisitions?
February 12, 2015
With the ink still drying on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the Idaho federal district court’s order requiring St. Luke’s Health System to unwind its acquisition of Saltzer Medical Group—a for-profit, physician-owned...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
“And they’re closing all the factories down”* — Going Dark During a Merger Review
February 10, 2015
Demand in your industry has been declining for years, the decline is projected to continue for the foreseeable future, and you are one of the few cost-effective manufacturers around. You just inked a deal to buy a competing manufacturer...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
‘Product-Hopping’ Can Be Snagged Under the Antitrust Laws
February 2, 2015
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, more commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, together with the patent laws, attempt to advance the competing goals of preserving pharmaceutical companies’ incentives to make the...
Read More ->